Holiday Reflection

I've been waking up later than usual lately. I think about things to do for the day and then settle into the same routine of surfing the net and just looking into whatever catches my attention and listening to music and eventually I find it's late in the afternoon and the day's gone by and it doesn't feel like it could be that late already and I've done little of anything. I've just sat on my ass and I feel worse because of it too, lack of blood circulation probably. I've been far too late starting my economics assignment. I haven't done any of the script work I thought I would. I spent much of the first week with a goal to work towards; getting my film editing done. That was good. Without focus, the second week has been a waste of time and that's how I feel now, like I've just wasted a whole week of my life doing nothing and feeling crap about it at the end of each day. I don't think I was ready for a holiday yet, not one this long. A week would have done. I never felt this way during the whole three or whatever months off around Christmas last year either. I actually did things then. I suppose a return to Uni and the responsibility of having work to do wasn't there then. I dunno. But I guess that means I'm looking forward to Uni. It's been too long.

Another Impersonal Post

Spam Loves Me
Or so says my tagboard. I love you too, Spam.

Mulholland Drive
It took a year and a half of looking and $41.01 but I finally have a region 2/4 copy of Mulholland Drive. Yay.



























This is what it looks like. The end.

Boondock Saints
In the late nineties Harvey Weinstein read a script by a man called Troy Duffy, loved it, paid him $1million and gave him the backing he needed to make a movie called Boondock Saints. The media swarmed around Mr. Duffy, citing him as the next Tarantino, and Duffy let it go to his head. He decided he was above his friends and family who he proceeded to neglect and forget, and soon turned into a big-headed jackass and a two-faced liar who badmouthed Weinstein behind his back. You don't get away with that shit in Hollywood. Weinstein, legally commited to funding the movie, slashed the budget, the stars fled and Saints was made for a small sum, was released to negative reviews and Duffy was never heard from again; left with no dignity, no friends, and just a pile of money he quickly wasted. And so Troy Duffy's story comes to a close. Oh yeah, and Boondock Saints is now a cult classic somehow since its DVD release, earning a 7.7 on IMDB.

The movie itself? It's entertaining, but it's also lazy rubbish. It's one of those films where people say "fuck" all the time because its the only way the writer can get the dialogue and story to flow. I generally like the type of movie it was trying to be genre-wise etc., so even as a failure I guess I didn't hate it all that much, and there were some nice elements to it even if it became increasingly repetitive and nonsensicle. Overall, I'd give it a

D+ or 1.5 out of 5. If you like violent Ritchie/Tarantino crime flicks, you might agree. If you aren't a big fan of either director's work, you'll hate it more than I did, I guarantee it.

Oh yeah, and the DVD says that "with Pulp Fiction-esque humour and Reservoir Dogs type justice, The Boondock Saints is the film Quentin Tarantion could have made." Whoever wrote this clearly didn't unlock the vast majority of Pulp Fiction's humour, which is so different from anything in the largely humourless Boondock Saints that a comparison is laughable. And no, Tarantino could not have made a film like this, because Tarantino's films don't suck. They're violent but not mindless. They make sense. The dialogue is fresh and original; sure they'll say "fuck" but it'll be after some witty comment about hash bars in Amsterdam. Oh and they actually have humour, they don't just claim it on their DVD blurbs.

"I Believe In America"

Dubbing Done
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

That was to Sonny, Rikky and Dennis for giving up more time than I anticipated to put the finishing touches on my movie this afternoon. Now for some chopping and changing and sound effects recording and hopefully an early May "release" (vs. the optimistic March on the original teaser).

The movie is looking less sucky by the day. It's still stupid and all, but at least it kind of works as far as conveying what its supposed to plotwise (an improvement over the original cut a few days ago). It's amazing that anything fits at all given the lack of shot planning, so yeah. I'm happy. Oh and Michael's random peach-eating cameo sequence seems to fit now in its new position so I can include it in the film. I think there's always room for a character eating a peach in any movie.

More Movies I've Seen These Last Few Days
Quiz Show (B+)
The Godfather: Part II (A) (4th favourite film)
The Godfather: Part III (B)
Narnia (C+...Again)
Big Fish (B+)

The Godfather Trilogy
Part I: IMDB 9.1/10 (#1), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part II: IMDB 8.9/10 (#3), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part III: IMDB 7.4/10, Rotten Tomatoes 77%

There's a reason why Part II is a better film than Part I in spite of its partial reliance on the audience's knowledge of the original for its brilliance (as a continuation of Michael's story). The Godfather is more direct, more blatantly focused and has a greater sense of inevitability about it for the most part, sure (plus it has Brando's iconic performance and about five times as many catch phrases as the sequels), but I think that Part II's avoidance of the original's strengths, stepping out on its own as a completely different experience (like, though to a lesser extent than, Alien and Aliens) is what leads it to ultimately become a more fulfilling, a more challenging and a deeper - both in terms of themes and character - experience. Part II is infinitely more subtle and more complex, employing without question the greatest use of subtext you'll ever see in a film, and while it initially seems - at least regarding the Michael side of the film's dual-narrative - plot-driven as though on course to simply tell a "what happened next" story like so many ill-fated sequels made for the apparent purpose of feeding the audience more of the same, its mostly setup for a great last 70 or so minutes (basically disc 2 of the DVD), with the film only gradually revealing its cards in a masterful display of set-up and pay-off. And you can't not love the Havana sequence (rebel arrest etc.) leading up to and including Michael's meeting with Hyman Roth.

I think there's a close parallel to be drawn between the Godfather films and the Star Wars series. Star Wars is the original, the most adored, the one that made fans fall in love with the series in the first place. It has more of those individual "classic scenes" that film buffs thrive on and it's fresh and original in a way that can't be emulated. That's basically like The Godfather. Part II meanwhile is like The Empire Strikes Back; a less showy, more complex and subtle dramatic exploration of its characters and themes, building to more of an emotionally driven (rather than action-packed) climax - think Blowing Up The Death Star vs The "I Am Your Father" Revelation. This may sound all very vague but to discuss where the brilliance lies requires a discussion of aspects of Michael's character, Vito's story, and what happens in the films. And I'm partially trying to convince you, the reader, to WATCH THESE MOVIES so spoiling it would be stupid ;)

Then, there's Part III. Coppola wanted to call it The Death Of Michael Corleone and the studio, citing the brand name's recognisability as a money spinner, were stupid (financial reasons aside) to intervene. With the name branded on the movie comes expectations of a Godfather-type film. An epic. But Coppola didn't make one - Part III is the only one that doesn't feel epic. It feels like a typical gangster plot stretched out over an epic-length running time. Sure, the climax is executed with almost as much momentum as that of Part I (not surprising really to find similarities here; much of the film is pointlessly spent either copying or sentimentally referencing the original film). And there are many great elements in the film - it's not bad at all. But the story is so simple and the whole film feels so unnecessary and pointless. If you can put that aside - that and the fact that Sofia Coppola gives WITHOUT A DOUBT the single worst performance I have ever seen (to think that Winona Ryder pulled out... she would have been perfect in the role...) - and try to enjoy the film its actually pretty good. But it just doesn't stack up as a GODFATHER MOVIE and doesn't deserve it's title. So in my Star Wars parallel this can be... well, its more like The Phantom Menace than Return Of The Jedi. And Sofia Coppola is Jar-Jar Binks.

Its a good gangster movie (something thinly disguised by the film's settings to instead resemble a Godfather epic), but the depth just isn't there. Still, it's worth watching (1) out of curiosity to see how it all ends, (2) for the scenes between Michael and Kay, (3) to gauge just how awful Sofia Coppola is and (4) to see how Coppola and Puzo could really make two classics in a couple of years and yet after sixteen years only come up with THIS as a conclusion, in case you've seen the first two and refuse to believe that it's possible.

The whole movie feels like Coppola's trying too hard to just MAKE A CLASSIC, and its an awful approach. It still gets a B, don't get me wrong here, but the series deserved a better conclusion. Proof of the film's failure lies in the fact that Michael's silent scream on the steps in the film's dramatic finale doesn't bring with it an ounce of the power that it should despite Pacino's efforts. Unfortunately for him, this moment that so easily could have been the pinnacle crowning achievement of the series is undermined by the fact that by the end of the film we just don't care that much anymore.

Three Days Later

Meh
Finished the first cut of my random movie today, it's 9 minutes and 27 seconds long. That's a long time to drag out a pointless conversation, geesh...

This running time basically consists of:
Intro sequence = 29 secs
Things actually in the script = 7 min 25 secs
Final unmoving shot where nothing happens as if leading up to something, only for the film to suddenly end = 1 min 33 secs

Overall, while I still need to fix some stuff up tomorrow and record the voice-over dubbing this weekend and maybe some additional sound stuff next week, it's about on par with my expectations. Which means it sucks. But no worse than anticipated, so I did okay. My constant aim shall be to never make a movie as bad as my most recent movie at any given point in time, a round-about way of saying that I aim to keep improving, so at the moment it shouldn't be hard to fulfill that wish with movie number two.

Movies I've Seen Recently
Fire Walk With Me (D+) - This being a David Lynch-directed prequel to my favourite TV show of all-time...how could it have gone so wrong?
28 Days Later (C-) - Starts really well, disintegrates into rubbish by the third act.
Cinema Paradiso: Director's Cut (B+) - Need to see it again maybe, really enjoyed it, but this IS NOT Life Is Beautiful by a long shot.
Ghost World (B) - Good movie; didn't blow me away but was thoroughly enjoyable, clever, had good characters.
Evil Dead 2 (C-) - Stupid and bad... and it knows it. Fun movie.
The Godfather (A) - My 5th favourite film, though this viewing confirmed that its not as good as Part II.
The Elephant Man (B) - Really solid drama that just seemed a teeny bit without a point thetmatically beyond a superficial "here's the Elephant Man, here he gets abused, these other guys are understanding, sympathise", has a strong and somewhat moving ending, interesting to see a few of Lynch's Eraserhead-like weirdness thrown into the start and finish to bookend an otherwise mainstream-ish drama.

Mission: Impossible III DOES INDEED KICK ASS
I said that a while back when I was just going by the people involved and the teaser trailer. Now it's all but confirmed. AICN's Harry Knowles is calling it better than True Lies, the film he believed previously kicked all other popcorn action flicks asses. Wow. Read that review. It sounds incredible. Seriously.

The best modern pop spy film… movies with gadgets and impossible stunts… James Cameron’s TRUE LIES reigns supreme… or shall I say reigned supreme. J.J. Abrams… first time feature film director has just launched into the stratosphere of badass holy shit watch him go directors. On top of that… That trailer you’ve seen. That little tingle you get from Phillip Seymour Hoffman when he talks about hunting down and hurting the woman that Ethan Hunt cares about… YOU’VE NO IDEA.

If you’ve been a fan of ALIAS or LOST and you’re dying to see what J.J. can do with the big toys, you’re going to be blown away. The difference between this film and his television work is just amazing.

(on True Lies):
Had scene after scene not been hit with jokes throughout… well, it would have been amazing. It would have been… MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3.

Meg Has Lunch

Awesome
Who wouldn't watch this movie?

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=6429

This jumps straight onto my "most anticipated" list, joining Snakes On A Plane.

I'm Bloated

Did You Know?
The Red Balloon won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar in 1956 and is a short film. Must... see... this... movie...

Because The "Writing Fantasy" Book Sucked Ass And Rambled On About Types Of Creatures And Magic To Put In Your Movie After Claiming To Cover A Broader View On The Genre (ie. "Big" etc.) Which Was What Attracted Me To It In The First Place:
I've been reading this book on writing short films in general instead - haven't got too far into it - but honestly: there are things in it that are just so damn obvious but that I've been far too ignorant of in the brainstorming and writing of short film ideas.

I think sometimes when you're starting out at something like this (filmmaking) and you know that its hard to get anywhere in the film industry you can tend to get carried away with the idea that you have to stand out and be different; try new complex things that nobody has ever done before without getting a handle on the basic elements. I think I can learn a thing or two from Simon and Dennis in terms of both the approach that Simon took with his first couple of short projects (please say you'll finish the Rose and Raymond one :p) and Dennis's recent stating of an intention to focus on developing an idea of a strong non-gimmicky narrative for his next work (not that his past works have been gimmicky, I mean it in the conventional linear narrative sense - without reliance on editing or some of the absurd/silly elements which themselves can be a bit of a cop-out from having to work on something more substantial (ie. like my random film I'm editing on both accounts)).

I think gimmicks can wait. They're just party tricks. The best way to "stand out" is to develop an understanding of fundamental dramatic principles, flesh out characters in believable situations and work towards developing themes and intended emotional arcs for the audience and get good at doing it. That sounds obvious right? Exactly. But the temptation is there to stray into the "oh, man - what an original (read: gimmicky) idea I just got hooked on" territory. Sometimes making something actually worthwhile can be tough and hard and take ages to get right and a gimmicky film by contrast may seem easy, but I guess in the end that the hard work will be more than worth it. Serena and Shuchi talked at the Production Group meeting about how, on average, their shorts take about 17 drafts to get right or something, and I think that in the end you'd be fooling yourself to think that you can get any good at this without the hard yards.

Anyways, this is probably a memo more to myself than anything so as to remind me not to stray into that "easy way out" frame of mind. But yeah, it makes a lot of sense so I thought I'd write it down and who knows.

Now: my movie sucks for a variety of reasons for which I alone take full responsibility (everyone else involved did a fantastic job with the rubbish I gave them to work with). The reasons include, but are not limited to:

1. I didn't do much planning. That was intentional. I needed to judge how much I'll need to do when I tackle something more substantial.

2. Lack of rehearsel. Didn't think I'd need much. But 1765 outside takes before we got it right have led to drastic changes in lighting between shots. It's unbearable and you can't help but notice it. A quicker schedule would have helped.

3. It's stupid, but stupid in the way that could work... only if executed well. So scratch "3." and replace it with:

3. It's poorly executed. This relates to a lack of planning. With the right storyboarding I could have covered all the shots I needed and known that I could present certain ideas through juxtaposing images in post-production. At the moment there are vague hints that are supposed to be much more obvious but which I simply don't draw proper attention to because certain shots needed to connect things just aren't there.

But ultimately it sucks because it's hard to make something good when substance isn't there. With the right elements in place, all these problems would have so much less potential to become roadblocks. You have a strong story, strong themes and strong characters and you'll end up with a strong sense of purpose: and it should guide anyone with an ounce of knowledge in filmmaking as to the right way to go about making something. Maybe not THE best way, but on the right track. So yeah. Time for some hard work. I'll keep working on my longer scripts too because they're my babies, but certainly some thought must go into simplier, less high-concept short ideas.

Did You Know? Redux
32 years and a few weeks ago Led Zeppelin's first six albums were all in the top 100 albums in the States at the same time. This is because Led Zeppelin is awesome. There isn't a Zeppelin or a Who or a Floyd around these days. 70s rock beats all.

You May Have Known:
That a week or so ago, some single by some guy hit no.1 in the UK before it was released, based solely on legal music downloads. A no. 1 with zero sales is a far cry from the days when Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album never got higher than no. 2 on the record charts yet sold 22 million copies in the U.S. alone.

You Should Know, And I Hope You Do:
That there's a lot more to Led Zeppelin than Stairway To Heaven. Or even Stairway To Heaven, Black Dog, Kashmir and Whole Lotta Love. Houses Of The Holy is a timeless mainstream radio rock song that would be a hit even if first released in today's music scene, and it was recorded over 30 years ago. Awesome. And Since I've Been Loving You features Robert Plant delivering some of the greatest vocals you'll ever hear. And guitarist/producer/principle-songwriter Jimmy Page is a legend.

I'm Bloated
I ate lots of chocolate cake, three marshmallow easter eggs, a few squares of dairy milk chocolate (Cadbury of course), some kumara salad, regular salad, cold chicken, Polish garlic roll, beef pastrami and a slice of camembert cheese since 1pm.

Google

Re: The Short Reply

I certainly don't want my blog turning into a debate on dog urination either so after these final words I'll leave the argument alone beyond a few final comments below pertaining to the "wider issue" of blog opinions to which you've applied this issue.

I'm sure I could sit here and agree with some points and disagree with others from "The Long Reply", and I do, my argument could have been better (even with some editing of existing material it would seem) and at the same time I could apply a number of these fallacy-tests to your own critical analysis and find over-simplification through loaded language and the use of an inconsistent analogy as a result of misinterpretation, possibly among other things, and possibly I could even be wrong about either or both of those; the effort needed to determine that vs. the importance of doing so at this stage dictates that any such counter-analysis wouldn't be worth my time. It's pretty irrelevant. What it boils down to is this: beyond pointing out that you didn't address the issue correctly in your tagboard response and my countering this response with ideas which were hardly infallible relating to whether or not people do or not care - I was essentially, at the end of it all, asking what the problem is; whether anyone should care. And you admit in reply that it's a pet peeve, and as such if I'd simply began by asking this in the first place, in the tagboard, any further argument would have been quite redundant. You're right to say that what was said was pedantic - correcting an irrelevant line of argument on my part, and your countering by pointing out my employment of certain assumptions that can not be deemed to be true without showing further evidence to support them.

So if that's the case then it is in "The Short Reply" that my interest now lies. You see, the examples you provided here are not only of opinions as in the more general 'points-of-view' on issues which can include opposing sides of a fact-driven argument, but are of opinions about entirely opinion-driven things. Nobody would set about debating whether any one of these opinions is correct or not because there is no underlying factual basis with which to determine an absolute truth - an opinion on these will be fuelled by nothing more than a personal disposition.

Thus I have this to say about your entry in general. Firstly, that on an opinion-based subject like those examples you provided, obviously people may wish to respond in the tag board with an equally opinion-based agreement or disagreement as happens all the time (and beyond that nothing normally escalates) and this would be deemed appropriate and in the spirit of a blog's purpose. However, to make a statement of opinion pertaining to an explicit issue leaves open to discussion differing opinions on whether or not any underlying premise you happen to suggest is "correct" or not, in this case the by now "well-publicised" issue of whether or not dogs urinating in public is in fact a problem (which I get the feeling nobody wants to hear anything more about, so I apologise to anyone else following all this). If there was in fact a problem, a problem I was asking in my blog-response to be enlightened upon, then perhaps there would be relevant facts behind the issue that you might have used to form your opinion on dogs urinating in public. That would be going beyond a simple statement of like or dislike of the action occurring, and would invite discussion on the issue. As your initial reply in the tagboard moved away from opinion vs opinion and provided solutions for an underlying, undisclosed and assumed problem, I felt that I would not be stepping outside of the confines of what is considered reasonable when responding to an "emotionally charged" opinion by responding at length because you had gone beyond the point of simply stating such an opinion in your blog, an opinion like the examples you've provided in "The Short Reply". You at the very least seemed to have implied in your tagboard an underlying 'absolute' problem to which solutions could be applied, because the assumption in your words was that people should do something about dogs urinating in public (why would they if there was not a problem?). So among other things I questioned, at the core of my reply, what this problem was that you were attempting to find a solution to. As you have since expressed that your problem with this issue lies in personal annoyance, you agree then that this isn't the case, that there is no underlying problem about which facts can be used to argue each way as to whether that 'problem' really is a material problem or not, and hence the argument need go no further because it is, clearly, a matter of opinion... now. It is in fact clearly in line with the examples you provided of opinions on entirely opinion-driven issues - now. It obviously was not however when I made my reply, when some underlying problem was being implied and had not been stated.

What I'm leading up to is this: I agree entirely about not taking what people say in their blogs and putting it under a microscrope and going overboard. You made this point well by using the David Lynch example. You did not however provide an example here essentially any different from those at the beginning of the entry; my quoted statement was an exaggerated opinion and of course any discussion at all about its validity would indeed be absurd just as with any argument in search of an absolute truth when dealing with a matter that is purely one of opinion. But I myself did not reply in length beyond a typical-of-tagboards offering of an opinion, which would be fine for all of your examples ("Lynch's last two movies sucked, you're viewing him with rose-tinted glasses and an overly-sentimental bias towards his older works" for example) until you offered what I deemed the makings of an actual argument outside of your initial blog comments through a move away from "I dislike" to "this is a problem", and when you did that I felt invited to make a counterargument in order to clarify the issue.

Did you initially "talk in arguments"? No. Neither did I initially reply as though you had. I never considered what you said in the blog an argument, I just felt that your personal opinion was harsh with respect to the second part of your reasoning (agreeing of course with your first statement that people should clean up the crap their dogs leave behind) and as such replied as people often do to such opinions. Until you provided what I felt was an invalid argument in response in the tagboard, implying that there was a problem that should be fixed by suggesting solutions, something which was not simply a basic opinion consistent with those examples you've provided ("I hate the weather today" etc.), I took it no further. I agree with everything you said in The Short Reply, I just don't believe it has any relevance to my decision to extensively reply in my blog. Because you're right - I don't make a habit of randomly arguing about everything, and I wouldn't argue if you'd simply said something like any of the examples you've provided and nothing more; but I do have a tendency to argue when I believe that somebody has made an invalid statement which I feel has subsequently invited a response and when I happen to feel like expressing my disagreement, and I felt that happend when you both implied an underlying absolute problem that dog owners should be addressing (as opposed to a problem you personally have with something as a matter of opinion and nothing more) and talked about incontinence in your tagboard to support your solutions which I felt was irrelevant.

So, at this point I'm supposed to have said some nice happy concluding thing where we all end up in agreement etc. so it doesn't go on and on. Um. Well yeah, I agree with your overall sentiment about what blogs are for. And sometimes I use mine to express an opinion or a query myself, possibly one I'll try to back up, however successfully, when I disagree with or don't fully yet comprehend an opposing view.

Happy Easter

I probably should have saved something for the paragraph, with the title summing up what I had to say.

In that case:
Anyone else find Cadbury chocolate to be 1728 times better than any other kind on the market, even if you'd gladly eat Nestle/Whittakers etc. anyway? I don't mean in terms of fancy shit and flavours they add etc., so it can't be compared to some $18/gram Belgian swirly praline thing, I mean the actual flavour of the plain milk stuff to which all additional flavours are applied. It's awesome. If you had to choose one big block of "plain" chocolate, whose would you go for?

My sister's over in England at the moment and while they have Cadbury, they don't have NEW ZEALAND Cadbury and the England one apparently tastes somewhat below-par. If you go to England, bring NZ chocolate. Oh and they don't have Peppermint over there except the one with those little peppermint chip things, as opposed to our Caramello-like gooey-Pepperment.

Oh and Australian chocolate is generally awful. Except their Cadbury stuff is good. And when I went to Australia I found that they made Peppermint not with dark chocolate but with milk chocolate.

Enjoy Easter. Eat chocolate. Lots. Now.

Where Have My Bold Subtitles Gone
This would have been the third straight post without them had I not written the above bold subtitle.

Google

And The Song Is...

The international radio premiere was April 3, 2006. On this day, Don Jantzen from Houston KTBZ-FM played "Dani California" non-stop for his entire three hour show, from 4pm-7pm CST. This decision drew a mostly-positive reaction from listeners, with several people calling in encouraging the DJ to keep playing the song.
- Wikipedia

Worth three hours of non-stop playing? You be the judge (or here if you're stuck on dial-up like me).

The new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is out next month, a double CD originally planned as... three albums to be released six months apart. No plan was ever more worth shelving.

Re: "This morning I went for a walk"

I thought I'd reply to something here because I didn't want to keep filling up Dennis's tagboard, but basically this is in reponse to the following.

Dennis's Blog: This morning I went for a walk. During a 30 minute period I witnessed:a) Three different dogs shitting in public, two of them in the Bucklands Beach reserve.b) One other dog pissing by two lamp posts.Some people are fucking assholes.

I responded that: (Are owners expected to dehydrate) their dogs before the walk so they don’t have anything left to piss? When they've gotta go, they've gotta go. And you can’t do much about a dog urinating *shrugs*

To which Dennis replied: As for urinating: some puppies cannot control urination when they get excited, but this dog I saw certainly was no puppy. Most dogs outgrow this behaviour, and if not, there are medical solutions such as phenylpropanolamine which should give 'em just enough control to get through exciting situations. The other common reason dogs can't control urination is when they are beign submissive. The most common cause of this is abusive behaviour from the owner's part. I'm not trying to judge, but I AM saying there are a very large number of options which are better than having dogs urinate in public. (And that this was not a one off situation as the owners were obviously very 'oh sure, go ahead' about it. Sure, they accept it, but that doesn't mean everyone else must.)

Anyways, I felt the need to respond in length because that's the kind of twat I am. So yeah:

That "some (dogs) cannot control urination when they get excited" is the premise of your whole response - and you've missed the point (though, as "phenylpropanolamine" tells me you Googled much of it, this isn't surprising). You're referring to incontinence (such as with the generalising "the other common reason dogs can't control urination") with regards to both seeking a treatment for that medical condition and talking about it potentially stemming from submissive behaviour. Specifically urinating in public is not at all a sure sign of incontinence. Sure, some of those dogs might happen to be incontinent the same way that some people who die of AIDS happen to be Manchester City supporters, but it doesn't form a direct correllation which can be pointed to as a characteristic of even the majority of those in question. Most dogs that urinate in public do so as part of thieir nature to mark territory, and I can tell you that not because an irrelevant Q & A found on the web suggests it but because this is common knowledge. A dog that goes for a walk and urinates against something or on the grass or whatever can be alright toilet-wise at home and not demonstrate submissive behaviour or an inability to be able to hold it in, they can be perfectly house-trained and have no medical reason for going against the grain of this, yet still have a tendency to urinate at intervals while in public.

Honestly, your "large number of options" have so far been limited to not abusing your dog and prescribing medication to treat a condition that most of these dogs don't suffer from. If an owner really gave that much of a crap about their dog urinating in public then they could maybe teach their dog to stop doing it, and if you want to throw some more relevant research in there then I might suggest looking at:

Punishing the dog will not work. If he is punished while in the act he will learn not to lift his leg when you are with him. Even if you punish him a second after the act, he does not equate the punishment with the urine marking and this may make it worse. To help this situation, when you notice the dog is about to lift his leg, give him the command to sit. In this position he cannot urine mark.

http://happypawsontario.tripod.com/id16.html

(the ensuing comment about throwing a toy is irrelevant if they're walking on a leash as is required by NZ law, and as such - if you want to raise this point - could not be seen then as an effective way of eventually teaching a dog the behaviour of wanting to sit instead of marking territory due to the reward of playing that will result)

So the response to an annoyance on the owner's part of having to stop all the time on walks while their dogs mark territory is one which doesn't correct behavour in the long term and leads to constant stopping anyway (the problem identified in this article). Certainly from the point of view of such an owner there isn't any significant gain in attempting to take this action, maybe a few seconds less time on each stop. But of course that hasn't yet addressed your point: regardless of how the owner feels, they should be obligated to do something about it on behalf of everyone else who has to suffer the (as yet unidentified, see below) consequences. Right? Because if not, then taking the action prescribed in the article would obviously be a voluntary matter on the owner's part unrelated to the problem at hand.

Now maybe if I was going to take this stance I should have just jumped straight into it from the beginning, and maybe would have if I'd known this would spiral into debate. But anyways:

That very few do give enough of a crap to do something about it like the suggestion above is probably why the behavour that you observed continues, and I will argue that these people are not assholes. Yes, I own a dog so you can say that maybe non-dog owners are more offended by it or something and maybe I'm missing the point as to where the offense lies so feel free to enlighten me but: if I see a dog peeing in public, whether it be on the grass or against a lamp post or a tree... I couldn't care less. The thing is, I'm actually surprised you feel so strongly about it with your 'why should everyone else accept it' take on it. After the dog's left, unlike shit, you wouldn't even know the pee was there unless you saw the dog doing it and hence couldn't, from what I can get my head around, be offended by that action unless you personally had some irrational phobia-like hatred of the sight of a dog doing it. It's a natural liquid that dries up in the sun, probably feeds the grass some nutrients and doesn't leave a lasting mark. Seriously: so what? There's a reason why they haven't passed a law against it when they went through the motions of demanding owner's clean up the crap.

Again, like I said, if I missed the point of how it's offensive, of any damage that is done, let me know. Right now I'm looking at this issue and thinking offense at dogs urinating in public stems from irrational stigma, but I don't mind being proven wrong.

Kirk Douglas Is The (Old) Man

When All Is Said And Done...
...the only question weighing on my mind at the end of the break is: why does it seem easier to hear my iPod coming home on the bus than when travelling to uni on it? Yes, I can turn it up REALLY loud and drown the bus out but when I get off at the end it SOUNDS REALLY EXCESSIVELY LOUD and I realise I've probably been damaging my ears. But then, going home, I can have it on a volume that while waiting at the bus stop sounds normal and not too loud, AND which doesn't have to be adjusted to hear the music when on the bus on the way back home.

To summarise, because those sentences were messy and confusing:

Morning = Waiting for bus, volume is at x. On the bus, volume must be turned up from x for music to be heard.

Afternoon = Waiting for bus, volume is at y. y "seems" as though it is as loud as x. On the bus, volume can stay at y and I can hear it fine.

I think maybe it's like how you can turn the TV on first thing in the morning and listen to it at the minimum non-silent volume and hear it, whereas later in the day after hearing all sorts of louder sounds you can't hear it well at all when (and this is where my theory is pure speculation) your ears have maybe adjusted to take in things at a louder volume? That could be bull, but it fits in with the summary above. The volume of the bus is constant. That volume is loud enough to drown out volume x. But later in the day, in order to hear the music at the same perceived loudness as I do at volume x in the morning, I must turn the music's volume up to "y", a much louder setting (although it is not perceivably louder) and a volume which is able to drown out the sound of the bus. In the morning, volume y would seem way too loud, leaving me with a lower volume of music which is then drowned out by the bus. Mystery solved?

Damn it, I knew these holidays wouldn't be a break from thinking :(

Editing
Went back for the first time in... who knows how many weeks, and edited together all the footage I've uploaded for my ambiguously titled short My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday. I still need to find something I can delete in order to upload the rest of the footage though. It's been fun so far. It would be more fun if I'd ended the day with an opinion on the likely finished product which wasn't "this will be awful." Oh well. Like I said, it's fun, I'll get that and a few lessons out of the experience. I just won't get a good movie. Something to work towards.

Paths Of Glory
This is the best movie I've seen since Coppola's incredible The Conversation. It's a film which paints a picture of absurdity in the midst of the second world war as three scape-goat soldiers are made examples of and court-marshalled for retreating in alleged cowardice when a division of the French army fails to fulfill unrealistic orders from a bafoon of a commanding officer.

Oh, did I mention that this film was by Stanley Kubrick? Kubrick is a genius and this is demonstrated here in his overall success in shaping a film that looks and feels much like a(n extremeley competently handled) Hollywood movie of the era but which goes entirely against the grain of typical Hollywood war and drama films in the way that it plays out and in what it accomplishes. It's a "non-Hollywood" kind of movie that, unlike most contemporary examples, doesn't try to be artsy-fartsy and/or experimental. It's a mainstream film that breaks free from mainstream constraints through some genuine ingenuity on Kubrick's part. He does such small things to great effect.

One thing I'll mention as being particularly impressive is Kubrick's portrayal of lines of soldiers falling like flies (in the least dramatised of representations you'll ever see, because Kubrick doesn't NEED that melodrama so many directors rely on in some attempt to manipulate emotion: he just needs to tell a strong story and you react because of that) while attempting to advance in the middle of bombings and gunfire towards an elusive German target. Forget all the Saving Private Ryan-esque bullshit showing all the established lovable characters helping each other and pushing each other to keep going and breaking down mid-battle to have their whingey personal crises: what Kubrick does, in not treating the scene at that individual-solider-level but rather detaching from individuals and giving us a horrific picture through the numbers that keep falling and the way in which each death is treated as just another and as something typical and disturbingly "normal" because of context, is FAR more effective. He paints a big picture over the whole scene and keeps his distance, and I was just watching it and thinking about how cinema has declined from days when they made movies like this that didn't need to rely on all that stupid over-dramatised bullshit that every war movie today is full of.

Paths Of Glory is a film that doesn't force anything. It doesn't feel the need to. And as testament to this, Kubrick tells his story in a brisk 84 minutes.

It gets an A or 5 out of 5. Superb movie, and easily one of Kubrick's best. I'd rate it higher than his other (more blatant) madness-of-war flick, Full Metal Jacket, and might even go so far as to say it's his second or third best effort (behind 2001, and at least on par with Dr. Strangelove).

Need I say this? SEE IT. NOW.

Oh and Kirk Douglas is in this movie, hence his being mentioned in the post title.

Edit: I just found out that this movie received zero Oscar nominations. I post this as a reminder that the Oscars are shit.

Sequel Of The Year

Let it load to the end then watch this slice of genius.

A Verdict On Nickelback

Break starts in 3 days! Only.... 2 assignments and a test to go.

Internet Explorer Sucks
I like having the option of starting to type the first few letters of a URL and then having it give me a list of sites that match all conveniently in a scrollable menu so I can be lazy and just click on the one I was going to type.

But there's one problem with this system. Spelling errors.

blgospot.com plagued me for a while after I mis-typed the address of Dennis's blog a few weeks ago. It sent me to blgospot.com, which some evil bastard cleverly registered to catch careless spellers like flies in a web, and as such typing in the beginning of the URL to Dennis's blog from there on in made the blgospot address pop up at the top of the list (with blg coming before blo in the alphabet). Then, naturally, being used to selecting the top address, I'd select blgospot and continually find my way to that damn other page.

If you're curious: blgospot.com.

Thing is: a site will stay on Internet Explorer's "list" so long as you've been to it in the past 2 or so weeks. So until I managed to not click on the damn blgospot link for 2 whole weeks it wouldn't disappear, and this was quite a mission. At the moment I'm currently being taunted by "metacrawler", a search engine I had to use for a Media Analysis worksheet which keeps making me type more letters to get to metacritic.com, a film/book/video game/music/tv show critics-ratings website. On a side note, I strongly recommend that site as a place to go to get a criticial consensus of something first instead of going out and buying an album from a normally-good band and discovering its a dud AFTER paying $25. Even Weezer, with their first 4 albums landing in Rolling Stone reader's 100 greatest albums of all time, managed to produce Make Believe as their fifth. This site saved me $25 right there.

Oh and note that if you clicked on the blgospot link and regularly go through the main blogspot.com home address I may have just caused you the same problem described above. Enjoy.

Did You Know?
Nickelback's most recent album sucks ass.

Actually, if you've heard any of the singles, you probably did.

101 Greatest Screenplays

The WGA's come up with a list of the 101 greatest screenplays ever written, voted for by its members. I've seen 45 of the movies listed, and while I largely agree with their choices in listing those films among the "greatest," I personally have a few objections to the order.

The one's I've seen:

1.
CASABLANCA - The flashback sequence always drags this film down for me; after success in shaping everything we need to know both in what happens in the present and, in a display of expert subtlety, in hints at the past brought out through character interaction, all of a sudden they shove in a clumsy and, given what the film depicts between Rick and Elsa later, entirely unneccesary flashback sequence, possibly for the sole purpose of giving the line "Here's lookin' at you, kid" meaning so they could use it as a catch-phrase. I honestly still can't give this film an A, just because of that. Just delete the scene in its entirety and the movie's better.
2.
THE GODFATHER
3.
CHINATOWN
4.
CITIZEN KANE
10.
THE GODFATHER II
12.
DR. STRANGELOVE
13.
THE GRADUATE
14.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
16.
PULP FICTION
21.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST - This would possibly be my personal choice for number one, though I've only seen it once and maybe I was just "wow"ed by it first time through, not having seen a film quite like it before. Lawrence, Godfather and Apocalypse for example have more complex scripts so it'd be hard to say without seeing them all again.
22.
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
24.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
27.
GROUNDHOG DAY - w00t
30.
UNFORGIVEN
32.
FARGO
35.
THE USUAL SUSPECTS - Double w00t, though I noticed a lack of "Se7en" on this list...
38.
AMERICAN BEAUTY - This one should be higher, simple as that.
39.
THE STING
41.
GOODFELLAS - Scorsese's great three, mention 1
42.
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
43.
TAXI DRIVER - Scorsese's great three, mention 2
45.
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
47.
THE MALTESE FALCON
49.
SCHINDLER'S LIST
50.
THE SIXTH SENSE
53.
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN
55.
APOCALYPSE NOW
56.
BACK TO THE FUTURE
60.
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
61.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
63.
JAWS
65.
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
66.
JERRY MAGUIRE
67.
E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
68.
STAR WARS
74.
BEING JOHN MALKOVICH - Higher than Adaptation?!
76.
RAGING BULL - And Scorsese's great three, mention 3. No surprise there.
77.
ADAPTATION
78.
ROCKY
83.
REAR WINDOW
89.
FORREST GUMP
90.
SIDEWAYS - No. Just no. Replace with "Se7en."
92.
PSYCHO
93.
DO THE RIGHT THING
100.
MEMENTO

No Life Is Beautiful?

Yesterday Sucked

Um
"Holidays" (ie. Uni letting us work from home 24/7) start after next week right?

If So
Still got a long way to go before then myself.

Yesterday was basically: Get up. Go to Uni. Come come and work on 204 worksheet for 20mins. Go to hand out fliers at Macleans for tutoring. Come home. Food. 204 worksheet for the rest of the night. Bed. And for all of that, as Uni was a 3-hour block with no breaks, my recreation time was, to say the least, a tad low. Today I shall make up for it by doing as little as possible. Oh and great: getting the 202 assignment I misinterpreted back today. I expect a "Fail" - not a C or something, a FAIL - so anything better will make me... well, not happy, because a C still sucks, but will - when exams roll around - make me happier at knowing I only lost 12% of my total grade by fucking up the essay instead of 15-20.

But as I was saying, long way to go until then. After today's break, tomorrow morning I have some online stats test thing to do which last time was a bit of a bitch because because it takes a while doing the practice tests and looking shit up in my book and all that. Then Saturday afternoon will see me working hardout on my next Stats assignment due on Wednesday. And if that isn't enough Stats for you, I have a Stats test to prepare for on Sunday, while continuing what will no doubt be a lengthy assignment, as that test falls on Tuesday night and is worth either 10 or 20% depending on how my end-of-semester exam goes. So that means Monday and Wednesday morning will be stats studying and stats assignment work too. Then on Thursday I will no doubt have another worksheet to complete for 204. They're worth 0.8% but can still take quite a while. Then the break starts. I think. Someone please answer my question about that above...

Then What?
No idea what's happening with Simon's film though I imagine by now if there was anything I should know about for at least the first week of holidays I would, given I do of course by now have my own plans to continue to upload (no space on computer - grr...), edit and dub the mysteriously-titled My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday, and the possibility (perhaps probability) remains of working on the Master's Exercise film for the Uni production group thing (a group which rocks by the way, or perhaps I'm just saying that because they gave me a free chocolate bunny and I started eating it but then it talked to me and I was all like: "cool, a talking chocolate rabbit" and now we're best friends and it told me to burn things). So anyways, editing should be done by the Tuesday of week one, after which time I'll be able to have a dubbing session whenever Dennis, Rikky and Sonny are free to do so. It'll probably take quite a while so I'll see if I can organise a day when everyone's free for a few hours as I have no idea how long this process takes. Dennis?

But yeah, the "then what?" as applied to the whole holiday is one which must be addressed. When I opened this entry by rephrasing the word 'holiday' as "Uni letting us work from home 24/7", that's essentially the "then what?" These holidays will basically be lots of uni work. Lots and lots of uni work. With bits of blogging, editing, dubbing, reading and writing (not to mention the occasional movie of course) thrown in for good measure. But yeah. Not much of a break until exams are over. And I still have to worry about my three stats assessments of various sorts in five days first.

Reading
Took out a couple of books on writing short films and writing... fantasy films??? The last one's more to address a specific idea I have for a film, but I think it could be helpful in general as fantasy is of course a wide topic that includes stuff like Big and in many ways is just an extension of any other genre into a more imaginitive context. What films don't delve into some degree of fantasy, whether it be the optimistic or pessimistic kinds or a mixture of the two?

Anyways, I'm up to the much built-up 'holy grail' of Julian Young's The Death Of God And The Meaning Of Life, his fifteenth and concluding chapter in which he discusses Later Heidegger. Can Later Heidegger defeat the 'nausea' of meaningless of the first and fourth parts of Sartre's Being And Nothingess which has thus far reigned supreme over the flimsy and inconsequential points of view of the uninteresting Foucault and the showy-but-philosophically-empty Derrida? Perhaps. I shall find out today.

But yeah, Derrida made my head hurt. Young makes all the confusing babble of various philosophers' writings very accessible so the book is very good and well worth the read for anyone after some basic insight into the major significant developments of philosophies on life since Plato, but I guess Derrida's tying so hard to sound smart that even just using his terminology is confusing and weird.

Google
I woke up today feeling compelled to encourage people to broaden their horizons by having them learn the names of some Jamaican towns, allowing you, the blog-reader, to know which part of the island you're on if you ever get washed up on shore with no memory and no-one speaks English and all they can tell you is the name of the town but then someone tries to mug you and you realise you have awesome fighting skills and may or may not be called Jason Bourne. And then you realise you could speak Jamaican afterall because you're Jason Bourne. And then you realise because you're Jason Bourne that you actually got washed up in France.

Lost... My Temper

Yeah
Argh! Lost! Why must you test my patience so? First six episodes cover like... 2 days? And now a freakin' recap episode???

When will SOMETHING HAPPEN? When will characters stop being so NEGLECTED FOR 18 EPISODES AT A TIME? When will everything fit smoothly together into each individual episode LIKE LAST YEAR? Why did I caps THOSE LAST 3 WORDS of the PREVIOUS SENTENCE when there was no reason FOR EMPHASIS? When will they stop speaking like they do in geeky sci-fi shows: "they" "them" "the others"... stupidstupidstupid... and a further related annoyance that pops up for me every few episodes: how about having characters ask the obvious questions we want to know the answers to that they seemingly *should* want to ask given their situation - it's a cheap way to draw stuff out, the way things are at the moment. Grr. I mean stuff like when Sawyer and co. met the tail-end people and the tail-enders knew more about the others than they did and yet this information was, for no apparent reason, not demanded of them. Etc.

And when will they realise they have a chance to not be so damn conventional here with this thing and... drumroll... actually get away with it? The show's established a fanbase, so the risk isn't high and this type of show is perfect for something a little 'different.' Maybe they should watch a bit of Twin Peaks and be inspired to break some new ground.

I don't know. I began watching Lost seeing huge potential. Now I'm just watching it slip away.

The Simpsons Movie
Yes, there is a Simpsons movie. Teaser Trailer.

Weekend: Part 2

Doing nothing tonight. At all. No work. Finally. Feels good.

Oldboy
Saw this on Saturday. It's a nicely shot and edited film with a compelling mystery driving what is essentially a pretty strong revenge story. I guess I was a bit meh about the revelations as to the truth; it seemed like they were trying too hard be shocking and dramatic with the whole "You slept with your daughter" "Oh! Must chop off my tongue." Okay, I oversimplified that rather unfairly. But they threw in some highly dubious hypnosis crap for good measure which pissed me off a bit so I'm just lashing out like a grumpy tantrum-throwing child.

B or 3.5 out of 5.

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose
This is a pretty good film. Or rather: a pretty good mystery/drama. It isn't a good horror film. Which is fine, because it doesn't try to simply be a horror film. It's a courtroom drama with some creepy, ominous atmosphere shit thrown in for good measure (hence the mystery/drama). But flashbacks to horror-esque exorcism stuff is stupid and not at all frightening; unlike The Exorcist, when the girl has what may or may not be moments of possession they're laughable instead of unsettling. That's the film's biggest weakness.

As a courtroom case though it's intriguing, and the main character, played by the ever-awesome Laura Linney, is a strong protagonist who demands our interest as she seeks to defend a preist charged with causing death through neglect and in the process looking into whether or not the girl he may have "killed" (inadvertantly) was possessed or if she really just suffered from a mental condition of some sort. The film does in fact balance these possibilities well. And it's all based on a true story which makes it more interesting.

A generous B- or 3 out of 5.

Haircut
For the record, I was not recently kidnapped by V and converted to his cause in the fight against an oppressive fascist government. The hairdresser went overboard. I said a number 4 around the back and sides and longer on top (like... scissors on top). She does part (a), then continues shaving away all over. At the risk of ending up with one quarter of my hair short and the rest long, I said nothing, having realised too late to do anything about it. But that's okay. It's growing on me.

See what I did there?

Google
Anyways, if you see this distinctive-looking hairdresser, my advice is avoid in case you get the same over-eager treatment.

Weekend: Part 1

IMDB Movie Of The Day
For the last three days it's been the Twin Peaks pilot. Yay. Looking at its rating (8.6, on par with film ratings for a Top 30 movie), I'm not surprised. Watch this series. Now. Download it. Go to the Uni AV Library. Borrow it. Something. Television has never been this good before nor has it been matched since. I feel it never will be.

V For Vendetta
This has surprisingly moved UP to an 8.2/10 from 8.1 yesterday, proving its not just highly rated because Wachowski fans inflated it with lots of 10 votes early. See this too. Now. On the big-screen while you still can. It's even better the second time around too.

Saw (second viewing)
Saw is a cheap movie. It was made for $1.2m, and it feels like the budget is reflected in every aspect from acting to characterisation to story (Danny Glover's character is so superficial and poorly-developed in his "obsession" that its absurd). But I feel that what the film does here is actually what it has to in order to be the film it needs to be: it ignores the shit you don't want to see so it can get to the "good stuff." Bring on the blood. The traps. The ominous feelings. The ending is gimmicky but FREAKING HELL I didn't care; this is one of the best gimmicky twists ever. It's not a revelation that suddenly surfaces about things that have happened before it; it's more of a twist making you realise that the sicko killer is "cooler" in his role as the villain than before and I loved it both times I've seen the movie (on Saturday I only remembered the twist in part, and I couldn't see what impressed me about it; then when I saw it again I went: Oooooh right! Awesome!). I love the idea too that the killer has never killed anyone, he figures out ways to kill themselves (the motive is to make people appreciate their lives more if they manage to get out - all the victims have been wasting their lives in some way, or doing something that might be "frowned upon") even though this too is obviously just a gimmick to drive the film towards more gore. Sometimes gimmicky movies are a whole lot of fun. This isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. It probably doesn't even deserve the grade I'm giving it. But I'm giving it a B- like I did the first time. Watch it and you might see why a film that doesn't even try to avoid falling short with regards to so many cinematic elements is still this fucking enjoyable. It's fun just to get grossed out sometimes. Some films affect you emotionally. Some affect your appetite. Who's to say which is the greater achievement? :p

Also Saw, But Not "Saw"
Also saw Emily Rose and Oldboy on Saturday. Find out if they suck or not in Part 2....

Google

Saw Saw Again

I Said "See Saw", She Saw Saw
How tongue-twisting of me. As I mentioned, yesterday I was gonna see a couple of rentals from the video store with my parents - is it so wrong to spend a Saturday night at home in front of the tellie? - and while it took some work, I convinced my Mum she wanted to see Saw when we were deciding what to rent. Put it this way. We won't be seeing Saw 2. In fact: I'll try anyway. If I pull this off I deserve a free pony. I'll name it Heidegger and throw peas at its ears.

Anyways, to cut a long story short: Mum and Dad want to know what kind of sick minds come up with a movie like this :p

Going out now, so shall elaborate on this and the other 2 films I watched yesterday shortly. May the force be with your auntie and her pet hamster.

Black & White

Colour Me Cunning
It was quite an effort but I've convinced my gore-hating Mum that Saw is worth watching for its twists and turns and thrills and... actually that's pretty much it. The rest really is gore. But those first three elements are in it too. A bit. Oh and there's Danny Glover and that chick who does the funny facial expressions when she's stifling a smile on Boston Legal. Will report back tomorrow with what she thinks of it. Hopefully this will lead to a family viewing of Saw 2 in the near future where we can collectively gasp as a girl is pushed into a pit full of syringes. Moments like these bring families together.

Colour Me Slow
Bravo, Mr. Liu. Bravo. It took me a while. In my defense I didn't realise what the date was until I remembered why Nick and Raymond wanted the company accounts done by today, nor did the "click"ing occur until the thought crossed my mind of sending them false ones as a certain well-timed joke. I'm usually smarter than this. Actually that's not true. But if I frequently employ rather superflous extensively-lettered wording patterns within the realms of these and other such sentence bounds, then the being-for-itself, as Satre would say, typing this period-ended passage may come across as being of a higher level of intelligence than one might otherwise assume if one were to make my more familiar acquanitance, thus conveying an effective illusion which perhaps fulfills my aforementioned intentions.

Google
This is me for writing that last part.

I need to put in Googles that aren't just animals all the time, even if they're relevant, critiquing-through-mere-existance animals. Unless they're the funny ambiguous "what the fuck is that?" kind of animal. I could maybe post some food. Or a machine. Has to be weird though.